Chris, Replicating for the sake of backups is in general a bad idea, since once you delete/update a record, it will be automatically propagated to the slave server.
Replication, should be used to provide better availabilty/load balancing but that would need to be setup as part of a bigger plan to provide higher availabilty to the service that you are providing. One thing that you could do, is to setup a replicating slave server, freeze the replication, perform backups (to tape/disks etc), then re-enable the replication activity, this way you provide a non-stop service without compromising your data availabilty. best regards, Enrique. --- Chris W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before I go reading too deep into the documentation > I would like to know > if this is even possible or if it is just a bad > idea. > > I have Server A with DB X, and server B with DB Y. > I would like to set > up Server A and B as both a replication master and > slave. Where Server > A would be the Master for DB X and the Slave for DB > Y AND Server B would > be the Master for DB Y and Slave for DB X. The > reason I am doing this > is just for keeping a backup. Is this a bad idea? > Any better ways? > > -- > Chris W > KE5GIX > > Gift Giving Made Easy > Get the gifts you want & > give the gifts they want > One stop wish list for any gift, > from anywhere, for any occasion! > http://thewishzone.com > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Enrique Sanchez Vela email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------- http://www.savetheinternet.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
